CAN ANYONE CALCULATE WHEN DID the ACCELERATING EXPANSION of the UNIVERSE BEGIN ?

[OPVerma]

ADAM RIESS discovered that the expansion of the universe has increased by 15% since the universe was half its age about 7 billion years ago. This discovery implies that at some point of time in pst the expansion must have began from 0% position. I have calculated this starting point to be about 7 trillion years ago. I want to cross check my calculation. Obviously this figure offsets all BIG BANG Theory and calculations.

[Gem]

ADAM RIESS discovered that the expansion of the universe has increased by 15% since the universe was half its age about 7 billion years ago. This discovery implies that at some point of time in pst the expansion must have began from 0% position. I have calculated this starting point to be about 7 trillion years ago. I want to cross check my calculation. Obviously this figure offsets all BIG BANG Theory and calculations.



Reiss' calculations are based on the measured rate of expansion of the universe. What rationale do you base your calculations on?

[OPVerma]

Reiss' calculations are based on the measured rate of expansion of the universe. What rationale do you base your calculations on?

It means you can calculate. I have taken the rate of the expansion of the universe 20 km /sec / mlyr. As you know the expansion rate is controversial varying between 15 -30.

[Gem]

It means you can calculate. I have taken the rate of the expansion of the universe 20 km /sec / mlyr. As you know the expansion rate is controversial varying between 15 -30.



I'm pretty sure the currently accepted rate of expansion is somewhere around 70km per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is 3.26 million light years). Is that the same rate you called 20/sec/mlyr?

[OPVerma]

I'm pretty sure the currently accepted rate of expansion is somewhere around 70km per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is 3.26 million light years). Is that the same rate you called 20/sec/mlyr?

Expansion rate of 20km / sec / mlyrs translates into 65.2km per second per megaparsec. I just checked in Google the latest figure is 67 km.

[Gem]

Expansion rate of 20km / sec / mlyrs translates into 65.2km per second per megaparsec. I just checked in Google the latest figure is 67 km.



... so how come your calculation estimates the universe is 7 billion years old and astronomers estimate 13.4 million using roughly the same expansion rate?

[OPVerma]

... so how come your calculation estimates the universe is 7 billion years old and astronomers estimate 13.4 million using roughly the same expansion rate?

The universe is not 7 billion yrs old. It is 155.4 trillion years old. You can see my Thread ' CALCULATION OF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE 155.4 TRILLION YEARS in this section .

13.4 million figure does not appear anywhere.

[Gem]

The universe is not 7 billion yrs old. It is 155.4 trillion years old. You can see my Thread ' CALCULATION OF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE 155.4 TRILLION YEARS in this section .

13.4 million figure does not appear anywhere.



13.4 or 13.7 billion, I meant to say, which is the age astronomers generally agree on. Your calculation of 155.4 trillion years is significantly older, and I'm just wondering what rationale you used to arrive at that figure.

[Gem]

The universe is not 7 billion yrs old. It is 155.4 trillion years old. You can see my Thread ' CALCULATION OF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE 155.4 TRILLION YEARS in this section .

13.4 million figure does not appear anywhere.



I can't find a thread of that title, and a search yields no results.

[OPVerma]

I can't find a thread of that title, and a search yields no results.


You can try this link on google -

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/search.php?searchid=1995847&pp=25&page=3

You would get ' CALCULATION of the AGE of the UNIVERSE 155.4 TRILLION YEARS ... at the bottom .

[OPVerma]

13.4 or 13.7 billion, I meant to say, which is the age astronomers generally agree on. Your calculation of 155.4 trillion years is significantly older, and I'm just wondering what rationale you used to arrive at that figure.

Scientists have missed to apply Relativity factor as we are making our observation from earth, as a result 13.7 billion years considered as the age of the universe is actually the age of the SOLAR SYSTEM / Earth. Before the origin of Solar system the time in the universe to us would be reflected in negative. Briefly 155.4 trillion yrs is based on following Mathematical Calculations

.1. Time for formation of Helium in the Universe ... 14 Trillion years.

2. Time for formation of Hydrogen in the Universe ... 139 trillion yrs

3.Time for formation of Hydrogen + Helium in the Universe In the ratio of
70 : 24 + Bio Chemicals = 155.4 trillion yrs

There are many mathematical Errors in the Big Bang Cosmological Model .

The new and advance VERMA Cosmology Model is given in ' The Universe' isbn 9788190950206 containing all these.

[OPVerma]

You can try another link http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=88135

[Gem]

Scientists have missed to apply Relativity factor as we are making our observation from earth, as a result 13.7 billion years considered as the age of the universe is actually the age of the SOLAR SYSTEM / Earth. Before the origin of Solar system the time in the universe to us would be reflected in negative. Briefly 155.4 trillion yrs is based on following Mathematical Calculations

.1. Time for formation of Helium in the Universe ... 14 Trillion years.

2. Time for formation of Hydrogen in the Universe ... 139 trillion yrs

3.Time for formation of Hydrogen + Helium in the Universe In the ratio of
70 : 24 + Bio Chemicals = 155.4 trillion yrs

There are many mathematical Errors in the Big Bang Cosmological Model .

The new and advance VERMA Cosmology Model is given in ' The Universe' isbn 9788190950206 containing all these.

how did you arrive at the bolded figures?



what makes you think helium atoms formed before hydrogen atoms?



I'm only asking for a little rationale. Can you provide any?

[OPVerma]

I can't find a thread of that title, and a search yields no results.
The subject thread ( LINK http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=88135 ) was satrted on 9thJuly15 and I answered some of your questions. If you want details you have to read the BOOK 'THE UNIVERSE' ISBN 9788190950206.

This thread is meant for those who can calculate and formulate equations. If you are unable to do so you should approach to your seniors and then come.

[OPVerma]

I can't find a thread of that title, and a search yields no results.

You can try this link http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=88135

[Gem]

The subject thread ( LINK http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=88135 ) was satrted on 9thJuly15 and I answered some of your questions. If you want details you have to read the BOOK 'THE UNIVERSE' ISBN 9788190950206.

This thread is meant for those who can calculate and formulate equations. If you are unable to do so you should approach to your seniors and then come.


All you have to do is explain the basic rationale. Can you do that?

[OPVerma]

All you have to do is explain the basic rationale. Can you do that?

The Time for formation of Hydrogen, Helium and Bio Chemicals = 155.4 Trillion Years is calculated by Verma's Equations.

The rational is that This thread is meant for those who can derive original equations. If you can do so, tell me your figure - when did the Accelerating Expansion of the universe Start ?

[Gem]

The Time for formation of Hydrogen, Helium and Bio Chemicals = 155.4 Trillion Years is calculated by Verma's Equations.

The rational is that This thread is meant for those who can derive original equations. If you can do so, tell me your figure - when did the Accelerating Expansion of the universe Start ?



13.7 billion years ago. I have explained the rationale of how that is worked out. You have yet to explain yours.

[OPVerma]

13.7 billion years ago. I have explained the rationale of how that is worked out. You have yet to explain yours.

Let us apply some commonsense mathemtics.

The present rate of expansion 20 km/sec/mlyrs was 15% less or ( 0.85 x 20 )= 17 Km/s/m, 7 billion years ago.

Before another 7 billion yrs ago ( or total 14 billion yrs ago ) the expansion rate was ( 17 x .85 ) = 14.45 km/sec/mlyrs.

So 13.7 billion yrs ago the expansion rate was not zero but about 14.45 Km/s/m

[Gem]

Let us apply some commonsense mathemtics.

The present rate of expansion 20 km/sec/mlyrs was 15% less or ( 0.85 x 20 )= 17 Km/s/m, 7 billion years ago.

Before another 7 billion yrs ago ( or total 14 billion yrs ago ) the expansion rate was ( 17 x .85 ) = 14.45 km/sec/mlyrs.

So 13.7 billion yrs ago the expansion rate was not zero but about 14.45 Km/s/m



You'd have run the equations of general relativity to come up with accurate results. I have seen the Friedman equations used, and of course Hubbles constant.

[Gem]

I guess the simplest way is using hubble's law where velosity of receeding galaxy = hubble's constant X distance: v=hd


h is a function of (distance/time)/distance. Therefore, a series of calculations can be used to express hubble's constant as time. To reverse the acceleration, then, we need the inverse of that. I.e. 1/hubble time.


It's not particularly complicated in principle, and it's well explained here http://manini-hlphysics.blogspot.com/2011/03/e64-e65-e66.html

[Rah nam]

Sure this verse expands all the time.
Galaxies are created constantly.

To measure an expansion rate seams to be fool
hearted. How do we measure the expansion of consciousness?
After all, a verse expands as consciousness expands.

We could look back and determine the age of this verse according to the present rotation of the earth around the sun, and even that is not a constant. Using the present rotation we would come to just under ten billion rotations since the first release of consciousness that started this verse.

If we used the average rate of expansion, we could say this verse will continue to expand for an other half a billion of years before the retraction rate will be greater. As the retraction rate speeds up, we could say in less than a billion years this verse will not exist any longer, at least not in the form it is now.

[Gem]

This video is better and explains the hubble constant to hubble time conversion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svI6Io2cCTQ

[Gem]

Sure this verse expands all the time.
Galaxies are created constantly.


A a verse is a stanza in a song or poem so your use of it in this context is highly ambiguous.


To measure an expansion rate seams to be fool
hearted. How do we measure the expansion of consciousness?
After all, a verse expands as consciousness expands.


Well, we know the speed of light and what it would be like to travel at that speed (be everywhere at once).



We could look back and determine the age of this verse according to the present rotation of the earth around the sun, and even that is not a constant. Using the present rotation we would come to just under ten billion rotations since the first release of consciousness that started this verse.


Are you talking about the solar system?


If we used the average rate of expansion, we could say this verse will continue to expand for an other half a billion of years before the retraction rate will be greater. As the retraction rate speeds up, we could say in less than a billion years this verse will not exist any longer, at least not in the form it is now.



There is nothing called a 'verse'.

[Rah nam]

There is nothing called a 'verse'.

You might call it uni-verse but there is nothing uni about this verse.
uni comes from unus = one.

I was given to understand there are as many verses as there are cells in my body. Yes, they are all one in fact but we don't talk about one single verse.


and by the way, the known laws of our physics will change very soon

[Gem]

There is nothing called a 'verse'.

You might call it uni-verse but there is nothing uni about this verse.
uni comes from unus = one.


I just call t universe because that's what people call it, so they can understand what I'm talking about.


I was given to understand there are as many verses as there are cells in my body. Yes, they are all one in fact but we don't talk about one single verse.


Are you talking about the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics?


and by the way, the known laws of our physics will change very soon



Do you have any reason to believe that?

[OPVerma]

Wikipedia writes
'
'The expansion of the universe is thought to have been accelerating since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era roughly 5 billion years ago.'

Though they talk about dark energy, gravity etc. but scientists are unable to calculate mathematically and give an exact figure.The 5 billion yrs figure above is a guesstimate work.

[Gem]

Wikipedia writes
'
'The expansion of the universe is thought to have been accelerating since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era roughly 5 billion years ago.'

Though they talk about dark energy, gravity etc. but scientists are unable to calculate mathematically and give an exact figure.The 5 billion yrs figure above is a guesstimate work. Well, based on the observations which were made, the expansion of the universe decelerated for a time after the big bang because, they theorise, the attractive force of gravity outweighed the repulsive force of dark energy when mass was 'closer together' in the early universe, but at at some point, the galaxies became far enough apart that dark energy began to predominate over gravity, and since then, expansion has been accelerating.

[OPVerma]

Well, based on the observations which were made, the expansion of the universe decelerated for a time after the big bang because, they theorise, the attractive force of gravity outweighed the repulsive force of dark energy when mass was 'closer together' in the early universe, but at at some point, the galaxies became far enough apart that dark energy began to predominate over gravity, and since then, expansion has been accelerating.


and since then ...

So what is that figure, speaking in mathematical language ?

[Gem]

and since then ...

So what is that figure, speaking in mathematical language ?



I can't do that kind of math.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPStj2ZuXug


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmKLXVFJzk

[ant]

I know we all seek the answers and truth,but why occupy your mind with something where you'll never get the answer?

Is it constructive?

[leader_of_ten]

Originally posted by Elabr8Aspie.

Is it constructive?

Maybe. Methinks you'd need to know that very figure to build a time machine.

[ant]

Imho,it's like painting a picture in your mind and not living in the now/present.

Misleads.

[leader_of_ten]

Originally posted by Elabr8Aspie

Imho,it's like painting a picture in your mind and not living in the now/present.

That was a non sequitur rooted in fact.

(No.)


Misleads.

No.